South Korea's correctional authorities lost the first trial in a reimbursement suit they filed after covering hospital treatment costs for Choi Seo-won, known as Choi Soon-sil before changing her name and a central figure in the influence-peddling scandal under the Park Geun-hye administration. The court ruled the state could not exercise its right of reimbursement because the statute of limitations had expired.
Senior Judge Kim Do-yo of the Seoul Central District Court's Civil Division 210 ruled against the plaintiff on the 15th in the roughly 39.2 million won reimbursement suit the state had brought against Choi.
Choi fell in a bathhouse around July 2019 while held at the Seoul Eastern Detention Center. She underwent shoulder surgery at Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital between May and July the following year. The problem arose when Choi did not pay the medical bills, citing financial difficulties. In October of that year, the Eastern Detention Center paid the 39.27 million won in outside hospital treatment costs on her behalf. The detention center later notified Choi to pay the bills, but five years passed without any follow-up procedures.
Correctional authorities learned of the advance payment in November last year and instructed the detention center to file a reimbursement claim. The detention center filed the suit against Choi on the 25th of the same month.
At issue was whether the statute of limitations on the claim had expired. Under Article 96 of the National Finance Act, the state's monetary claims expire if not exercised within five years. A payment notice issued by the state, however, interrupts the limitation period.
The state argued that the payment reminder Choi received on Oct. 28, 2020, constituted a payment notice under the National Finance Act. Choi's side countered that the statute of limitations had expired because the suit was filed more than five years after Oct. 23, 2020, the date of the advance payment.
The court sided with Choi. Kim acknowledged that Choi had an obligation to pay the medical bills the detention center had covered along with damages for delay. But the judge found that the suit had been filed after the statute of limitations expired.
Kim held that the payment reminder the state cited as its basis could not be regarded as a payment notice by the state as defined by law. "Under the relevant statutes, a payment resolution document must be prepared for a payment notice to be made," the judge said. "All related details, including the payment address and the basis for calculating the amount, must be recorded, but the detention center did not follow this format when it notified Choi."